Closed What is atheism - a common misconception

[bandwagon]

JackFrost10, post: 10034662, member: 1309305"]sir I think you are confused, I actually have some authority to say something about atheism because I am called an atheist, and atheist is a label, I would prefer to be called a free thinker or the Enlightened(not the Buddhist one).


Then, have the faith that i am confused and you are not confused. i do not buy that.

What is your authority other than yourself or others that buy your thoughts. Do you mean that I do not have the intellectual right to speak of atheism? Even if you are a self-confessed atheist, it does not mean that your definition or understanding of atheism is the ultimate or absolute truth about atheism. Label such as atheist, agnostic or theist is not necessary for anyone to define an intellectual position. Example, an atheist has all the intellectual right to define theism according to his understanding of theism as what the theist speaks to him(the atheist). Likewise, the theist has all the intellectual right to define atheism as how the atheist utter or speak of his position. If you say that you are the authority, then it follows that I have too the authority since I am also a thinking or intellectual being. In no way that you can show here the superiority of your understanding of atheism. What too if I am an atheist, am I wrong into saying that as an atheist, my believe is that nothing is true but materialism or naturalism and all sort of metaphysical statements are empty or meaningless?



also I am not self-contradicting, you are, you think you understood atheism that's why I'm here to clarify any misconceptions, its your opinion about atheism. almost everything you need to know about atheism is in the first post.

You are self-contradicting because you do not admit that atheism is a belief. This is what you said in your first post here...


Atheism is a label for the questioning of the claim that GOD's exist, Atheism doesn't claim anything, it only ask questions based on the Theist that claims their GOD exist. and so far Theist cant present a proper argument, research, hypothesis or theory for their claim therefore Atheism rejects them.

Here is an example:
I believe Unicorns Exist, I read it in a book made thousands of years ago by gods that throw lightning bolts from the sky. - if you reject this claim you will be an atheist about the unicorn.

Here is another one:
Zues is real, he is written in a book from ancient Greece. - if you dont believe in greek methology you are an Atheist for ancient greeks.

so in short Atheism is a label for the rejection of all man made GOD's that doesn't present answers to questions.


We see here that you are defining atheism.. 'as a label for the questioning of the claim of GOD'S existence. atheism doesn't claim anything. it only ask questions on the theist that claims...God exist(s)...
and so far Theist cant present a proper argument, research, hypothesis or theory for their claim therefore Atheism rejects them.

How ridiculous that you deny that atheism claims nothing. You stress that a belief requires a claim.
Doesn't atheism require a claim? Only those you can fool that atheism claims nothing. However, from your very own statements, atheism claims a lot. Since, atheism claims a lot, by your idea of belief that it requires a claim, then, atheism is a belief which this is the truth about atheism as a belief and a worldview.

Why atheism claims something? because it not only questions the theist position, it also argues against the theist position. it presents alternative arguments against the theist position and the theist worldview. This arguments constructed by the atheist(just as the theist arguments) are not absolute or ultimate since the atheist is required to be all knowing, omnipresent in all of realities, dimensions, and space-time continuum to establish his case as ultimate and absolute and to drop the label belief in his position and boldly say that atheism is the ultimate fact.

Your Idea of atheism is wrong that's why I'm clarifying it, if your an atheist you can tell me your position about the GOD's argument and I will tell you what is wrong with it, If you are a theist then you can tell your atheist friends to join the discussion they would agree to me I'm sure.

You see...instead of your ludicrous semantic charade on atheism, it is better to be direct to the point by being logical and enter the debate on God's existence by presenting your arguments which you BELIEVE is the truth compared to the arguments of the believer or theist.

 

[JackFrost10]

JackFrost10, post: 10034662, member: 1309305"]sir I think you are confused, I actually have some authority to say something about atheism because I am called an atheist, and atheist is a label, I would prefer to be called a free thinker or the Enlightened(not the Buddhist one).


Then, have the faith that i am confused and you are not confused. i do not buy that.

What is your authority other than yourself or others that buy your thoughts. Do you mean that I do not have the intellectual right to speak of atheism? Even if you are a self-confessed atheist, it does not mean that your definition or understanding of atheism is the ultimate or absolute truth about atheism. Label such as atheist, agnostic or theist is not necessary for anyone to define an intellectual position. Example, an atheist has all the intellectual right to define theism according to his understanding of theism as what the theist speaks to him(the atheist). Likewise, the theist has all the intellectual right to define atheism as how the atheist utter or speak of his position. If you say that you are the authority, then it follows that I have too the authority since I am also a thinking or intellectual being. In no way that you can show here the superiority of your understanding of atheism. What too if I am an atheist, am I wrong into saying that as an atheist, my believe is that nothing is true but materialism or naturalism and all sort of metaphysical statements are empty or meaningless?



also I am not self-contradicting, you are, you think you understood atheism that's why I'm here to clarify any misconceptions, its your opinion about atheism. almost everything you need to know about atheism is in the first post.

You are self-contradicting because you do not admit that atheism is a belief. This is what you said in your first post here...


Atheism is a label for the questioning of the claim that GOD's exist, Atheism doesn't claim anything, it only ask questions based on the Theist that claims their GOD exist. and so far Theist cant present a proper argument, research, hypothesis or theory for their claim therefore Atheism rejects them.

Here is an example:
I believe Unicorns Exist, I read it in a book made thousands of years ago by gods that throw lightning bolts from the sky. - if you reject this claim you will be an atheist about the unicorn.

Here is another one:
Zues is real, he is written in a book from ancient Greece. - if you dont believe in greek methology you are an Atheist for ancient greeks.

so in short Atheism is a label for the rejection of all man made GOD's that doesn't present answers to questions.


We see here that you are defining atheism.. 'as a label for the questioning of the claim of GOD'S existence. atheism doesn't claim anything. it only ask questions on the theist that claims...God exist(s)...
and so far Theist cant present a proper argument, research, hypothesis or theory for their claim therefore Atheism rejects them.

How ridiculous that you deny that atheism claims nothing. You stress that a belief requires a claim.
Doesn't atheism require a claim? Only those you can fool that atheism claims nothing. However, from your very own statements, atheism claims a lot. Since, atheism claims a lot, by your idea of belief that it requires a claim, then, atheism is a belief which this is the truth about atheism as a belief and a worldview.

Why atheism claims something? because it not only questions the theist position, it also argues against the theist position. it presents alternative arguments against the theist position and the theist worldview. This arguments constructed by the atheist(just as the theist arguments) are not absolute or ultimate since the atheist is required to be all knowing, omnipresent in all of realities, dimensions, and space-time continuum to establish his case as ultimate and absolute and to drop the label belief in his position and boldly say that atheism is the ultimate fact.

Your Idea of atheism is wrong that's why I'm clarifying it, if your an atheist you can tell me your position about the GOD's argument and I will tell you what is wrong with it, If you are a theist then you can tell your atheist friends to join the discussion they would agree to me I'm sure.

You see...instead of your ludicrous semantic charade on atheism, it is better to be direct to the point by being logical and enter the debate on God's existence by presenting your arguments which you BELIEVE is the truth compared to the arguments of the believer or theist.

ah I think we might have a problem here, we are not on the same page.

- I am called an atheist because I reject the theist claim for a GOD, right? could we agree on this one?
- You are called a theist if you believe that a GOD exist, right?
- you are saying that atheist is a belief because your idea of atheism is rejecting GOD right?
- you are saying that atheism claims a lot? like what claim?

you see we cant make a common ground when you are assuming everything.
you contradict yourself by saying no one has the authority to define atheism yet you have your own definition of it.

you see the GOD argument started when you claim that GOD exist. I dont know if there is a GOD, so you have the burden of prof for that argument.

 

[bandwagon]

JackFrost10, post: 10036765, member: 1309305"]ah I think we might have a problem here, we are not on the same page.

The problem is you do not admit my intellectual understanding of atheism. So be it. However, your definition of atheism is restrictive and lacking.

- I am called an atheist because I reject the theist claim for a GOD, right? could we agree on this one?
-You are called a theist if you believe that a GOD exist, right?

This is a moot point. Any intelligent or rational person that knows the God debate or issue, can have all the intellectual right to define labels/beliefs.An agnostic can speak or define of atheism, agnosticism or theism, an atheist is entitled to define agnosticism, atheism or theism, the theist too have all these intellectual right.

- you are saying that atheist is a belief because your idea of atheism is rejecting GOD right?
- you are saying that atheism claims a lot? like what claim?

re-read my previous messages above

you see we cant make a common ground when you are assuming everything.

no. i am not assuming everything. if i assume everything, space-time is not enough.

it is you that assumes too much.

we can not make common ground because you do not admit my idea of atheism. well, that is your opinion amen!


you contradict yourself by saying no one has the authority to define atheism yet you have your own definition of it.

i do not say that no one has the authority. give evidence or you are reading superficially.

i said, no single authority. your opinion is yours so mine is mine.

you see the GOD argument started when you claim that GOD exist. I dont know if there is a GOD, so you have the burden of prof for that argument.

for clarification, this thread is not per see the debate that God exists or does not exist.

this thread is all about the meaning of atheism. you need to be punctual of what we are really talking about here.

 

[JackFrost10]

JackFrost10, post: 10036765, member: 1309305"]ah I think we might have a problem here, we are not on the same page.

The problem is you do not admit my intellectual understanding of atheism. So be it. However, your definition of atheism is restrictive and lacking.

- I am called an atheist because I reject the theist claim for a GOD, right? could we agree on this one?
-You are called a theist if you believe that a GOD exist, right?

This is a moot point. Any intelligent or rational person that knows the God debate or issue, can have all the intellectual right to define labels/beliefs.An agnostic can speak or define of atheism, agnosticism or theism, an atheist is entitled to define agnosticism, atheism or theism, the theist too have all these intellectual right.

- you are saying that atheist is a belief because your idea of atheism is rejecting GOD right?
- you are saying that atheism claims a lot? like what claim?

re-read my previous messages above

you see we cant make a common ground when you are assuming everything.

no. i am not assuming everything. if i assume everything, space-time is not enough.

it is you that assumes too much.

we can not make common ground because you do not admit my idea of atheism. well, that is your opinion amen!


you contradict yourself by saying no one has the authority to define atheism yet you have your own definition of it.

i do not say that no one has the authority. give evidence or you are reading superficially.

i said, no single authority. your opinion is yours so mine is mine.

you see the GOD argument started when you claim that GOD exist. I dont know if there is a GOD, so you have the burden of prof for that argument.

for clarification, this thread is not per see the debate that God exists or does not exist.

this thread is all about the meaning of atheism. you need to be punctual of what we are really talking about here.

ah I see it now, so you do not belong here and you shouldn't have replied to the thread, this thread is for someone who wants to know what atheism is from an atheist perspective, I am saying that your opinion of atheism is false based on my perspective on atheism, so its your word against mine.

I reject your claim that your GOD exist based on the evidence presented, so you can call me an atheist.

P.S.: we did not touch any GOD argument I was clarifying the stand of atheism from an atheist perspective but you have a fixed opinion about atheism based on your reality.

so for others that is reading this, I am an atheist and I am saying that his take on atheism is wrong, and a theist said that my take on atheism is wrong. you can decide for yourself

 

[Delta India Charlie Kilo]

TS mukhang pina-ikot kalang ni Bandwagon eh. haha

 

[bandwagon]

TS mukhang pina-ikot kalang ni Bandwagon eh. haha

Where are the details?

 

[DoNotDisturb]

its a presupposition that a GOD already exist and that an atheist is someone that is rejecting it.

Ah..so naniniwala ka sa big bang?that we came from nothing..and that nothing created everything?

 

[bandwagon]

Jackfrost: "ah I see now, so you do not belong here."

BandWagono you have any disclaimer in your earliest message? What I only know is I do not belong in your narrow point of view. There is no stated rule here that I shall not react in your message.

JF: "...this thread is for someone who wants to know what atheism from an atheist..."

BW: You should have said that from the very beginning. If that should have been said earlier, I should not have wasted time to a bigoted opinion.

JF:"...your opinion of atheism is false based on my perspective on atheism.."

BW: That is your opinion and only your opinion. You don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. This is analogous to the game of chess opening theory. Example, in the White's 1st move say e4 and we employ the Sicilian defense c5...in the Sicilian system there are lots of variation..we have the pelican, rossolimo, dragon, kan, O'Kelly, taimanov, classical, scheveningen, sveshnikov, and so on...now, you insist that the pelican is the only Sicilian defense and the only correct defense without having the analysis or pushing into deeper studies on the validity of the other defensive variations or systems of the Sicilian.

JK: I reject your claim that your God exists based on the evidence presented, so you can call me an atheist.

BW: Here, your outright denial of atheism as a belief is exposed. When you reject a claim or concept (the God concept as an example) at least you have the knowledge of that concept. You don't reject for nothing. You can not reject in a vacuum of thoughts. Rejection or intellectual rejection to be exact, requires the creation of arguments, which these arguments you believe are true. To reject an intellectual position, at least you have beforehand the knowledge of a position you are to reject. If you do not have a belief in your arguments, then you are self contradictory. Your belief in your arguments is due to your deep understanding of reality. However, it is still a belief because you can and do not exist in all realities and not all knowing. The strength of your belief lies in your strong arguments or understanding of reality. There is nothing wrong in a belief, I mean, there is not illogical in a term to be a belief-system. Atheism is a system of concepts.

JF: we did not touch any God argument

BW: It is very clear that from the title of this thread is about misconception in atheism. This thread exclusively tackles what atheism is about. For a neat discussion there must be a separate thread.

JF: you have fixed opinion about atheism based on your reality.

BW: How about applying that to yourself?
BTW, true in some sense my opinion on atheism is fixed. I am so convinced that atheism is a belief. Atheism does not need religious liturgies, rituals or canonical books to be qualified as a belief. The atheist believes in his arguments as true as opposed to the arguments of the theist. I welcome intelligent opinions whether that opinions come from self confessed atheists, agnostic, or theists. Label is not necessary for someone to speak about an idea. When you are an atheist or theist, no laws of logic will disqualify or invalidate you into speaking about atheism or thesism or both of these two worldviews. Do not create a concept where you think all reality in that concept you created is contained and manifesting or unraveling. Non admittance that there are still too much to know and this would proceed to infinity as long as intelligent beings exist is a kind of bigotry and close-mindedness.

 

[Silent Doer]

Naniniwala ako másáráp ang spaghetti m......

 

[Silent Doer]

Spaghetti mo....rcon

 

[solargod]

hi jackforst. nakikita din kita sa kabila. its been a while.

 

[JackFrost10]

BandWagono you have any disclaimer in your earliest message? What I only know is I do not belong in your narrow point of view. There is no stated rule here that I shall not react in your message.

well my view has no point to you because it is not the absolute truth in all universes and dimensions and all possible timeline in the space-time continuum.

BW: You should have said that from the very beginning. If that should have been said earlier, I should not have wasted time to a bigoted opinion.

I didn't know that my credential as an Atheist in this realty is not enough, that I have to live in all possible realities and dimension in all possible timeline in the space-time continuum to be able to say you are misunderstanding something.

BW: That is your opinion and only your opinion. You don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. This is analogous to the game of chess opening theory. Example, in the White's 1st move say e4 and we employ the Sicilian defense c5...in the Sicilian system there are lots of variation..we have the pelican, rossolimo, dragon, kan, O'Kelly, taimanov, classical, scheveningen, sveshnikov, and so on...now, you insist that the pelican is the only Sicilian defense and the only correct defense without having the analysis or pushing into deeper studies on the validity of the other defensive variations or systems of the Sicilian.

This is also your opinion and only your opinion.You also don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. For me atleast I am classified as an Atheist therefore I have some authority in Atheism.

BW: Here, your outright denial of atheism as a belief is exposed. When you reject a claim or concept (the God concept as an example) at least you have the knowledge of that concept. You don't reject for nothing. You can not reject in a vacuum of thoughts. Rejection or intellectual rejection to be exact, requires the creation of arguments, which these arguments you believe are true. To reject an intellectual position, at least you have beforehand the knowledge of a position you are to reject. If you do not have a belief in your arguments, then you are self contradictory. Your belief in your arguments is due to your deep understanding of reality. However, it is still a belief because you can and do not exist in all realities and not all knowing. The strength of your belief lies in your strong arguments or understanding of reality. There is nothing wrong in a belief, I mean, there is not illogical in a term to be a belief-system. Atheism is a system of concepts.

Its your opinion and only your opinion.You also don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. you can reject a claim if it doesn't meet the burden of prof based on logic and science in the reality you think you live in.

BW: How about applying that to yourself?
BTW, true in some sense my opinion on atheism is fixed. I am so convinced that atheism is a belief. Atheism does not need religious liturgies, rituals or canonical books to be qualified as a belief. The atheist believes in his arguments as true as opposed to the arguments of the theist. I welcome intelligent opinions whether that opinions come from self confessed atheists, agnostic, or theists. Label is not necessary for someone to speak about an idea. When you are an atheist or theist, no laws of logic will disqualify or invalidate you into speaking about atheism or thesism or both of these two worldviews. Do not create a concept where you think all reality in that concept you created is contained and manifesting or unraveling. Non admittance that there are still too much to know and this would proceed to infinity as long as intelligent beings exist is a kind of bigotry and close-mindedness.

I only know my reality and it is agreed by most atheist. The arguments of Atheism came from science and logic which is considered true in this reality and this timeline of the space-time continuum.

 

[JackFrost10]

Ah..so naniniwala ka sa big bang?that we came from nothing..and that nothing created everything?

we actually don't know anything before the big bang. ito po ang abridge version kng pano natin na discover ang big bang.

We discovered that the universe is expanding, so we retrace that back with math based on the rate of expansion of the universe, then we put it in a simulator then run it backwards.

1 theory is that after the universe expands it would retract and become a singularity and then it does it all over again.

 

[DoNotDisturb]

we actually don't know anything before the big bang. ito po ang abridge version kng pano natin na discover ang big bang.

We discovered that the universe is expanding, so we retrace that back with math based on the rate of expansion of the universe, then we put it in a simulator then run it backwards.

1 theory is that after the universe expands it would retract and become a singularity and then it does it all over again.

Alam mo ba sino gumawa ng theory of big bang?he's a priest..Fr.Georges Lemaitre.sa tingin mo may Alam cya about science?sa tingin mo totoo rin ang evolution?dba ang mga atheist Hindi naniniwala sa God dba?so it means sa evolution kayo naniniwala?Tama ba?

 

[JackFrost10]

Alam mo ba sino gumawa ng theory of big bang?he's a priest..Fr.Georges Lemaitre.sa tingin mo may Alam cya about science?sa tingin mo totoo rin ang evolution?dba ang mga atheist Hindi naniniwala sa God dba?so it means sa evolution kayo naniniwala?Tama ba?

yes, based on the evidence presented.

 

[sp4rr0w08]

ff Good conversation Bandwagon and Jackfrost..

Maintain it healthy I love reading both of your views in life..

 

[sp4rr0w08]

Anyway bandwagon, atheism is not a beliefs or a group..

It's only a label to someone, who doesn't believe in God..

If you don't believe in God, then you're an atheist
If you do not believe in God, but can change your mind if the evidence and proof are shown then you're an Agnostic
If you believe in God, but "Which god?" or "Did he really exist?" Then you're an Agnostic Theist
If you believe in God, no matter what.. By Faith, by Books or by Religion.. You're a theist..

 

[bandwagon]

Anyway bandwagon, atheism is not a beliefs or a group..

It's only a label to someone, who doesn't believe in God..

If you don't believe in God, then you're an atheist
If you do not believe in God, but can change your mind if the evidence and proof are shown then you're an Agnostic
If you believe in God, but "Which god?" or "Did he really exist?" Then you're an Agnostic Theist
If you believe in God, no matter what.. By Faith, by Books or by Religion.. You're a theist..

Hi Sparrow!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that atheism is not a belief. I have already shown that why it is a belief.

A sensible or powerful belief comes from strong arguments where these arguments are created from logical or rational thinking and empirical investigations. If we construct these arguments, we believr that this is the truth. The atheist believes in his arguments.

Atheism is also a concept. It is derived from specifics, where these specifics speak or define atheism. These specific are the arguments of atheism. These arguments are derived from rational/logical thinking and empirical investigations.

 

[bandwagon]

well my view has no point to you because it is not the absolute truth in all universes and dimensions and all possible timeline in the space-time continuum.


I didn't know that my credential as an Atheist in this realty is not enough, that I have to live in all possible realities and dimension in all possible timeline in the space-time continuum to be able to say you are misunderstanding something.



This is also your opinion and only your opinion.You also don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. For me atleast I am classified as an Atheist therefore I have some authority in Atheism.



Its your opinion and only your opinion.You also don't have the monopoly on truth. You are not the only intellectually thinking human being. you can reject a claim if it doesn't meet the burden of prof based on logic and science in the reality you think you live in.



I only know my reality and it is agreed by most atheist. The arguments of Atheism came from science and logic which is considered true in this reality and this timeline of the space-time continuum.

This only confirms my arguments on atheism.

It shows that you can not establish your concept of atheism like the force of gravity that pulls everything.

This is like....


Atheism is not a blah blah blah...
Atheism does not claim blah blah blah...
Atheism argues that theism is a blah blah blah
Therefore, atheism is not a blah blah blah

 

[bandwagon]

Anyway bandwagon, atheism is not a beliefs or a group..

It's only a label to someone, who doesn't believe in God..

If you don't believe in God, then you're an atheist
If you do not believe in God, but can change your mind if the evidence and proof are shown then you're an Agnostic
If you believe in God, but "Which god?" or "Did he really exist?" Then you're an Agnostic Theist
If you believe in God, no matter what.. By Faith, by Books or by Religion.. You're a theist..

May I add that agnosticism, to my understanding, means the suspension of judgment (the existence or nonexistence of God in this case) until sufficient information or knowledge is available or the agnostic himself will have that "leap of faith" or intellectual action to take the side of the atheist or theist. The agnostic can remain agnostic in real life, but he can argue in favor of theism or atheism. This could be true to an atheist or theist. The thoughts are what we to analyze and judge, not the private life of that person.